Background material for New Zealand
Lectures
by Thomas R. DeGregori
The following material was prepared as a general purpose framework for my public
lectures in New Zealand at the end of June, 2003. The lecture will be to
different audiences with differing backgrounds and interest but the underlying
theme of all the lectures will be the role of agricultural biotechnology in
international trade and economic development. IO trust that the following will
be helpful for those who attend the lectures.
Technology Transfer: 1st World Myth and 3rd World Reality.
The rise of modern science and industrial technology over the last two centuries
has its own Newtonian mechanics in having an equal and opposite romantic,
vitalist reaction to it. By the last quarter of the 20th century, it became
obvious that science, technology and modernity were providing a longer,
healthier life for those living in countries fortunate to have command of them
and that those who were not so fortunate avidly sought to access modern science
and technology as a necessary instrument of economic development.
Just as assuredly developing countries were seeking to facilitate technology
transfer, the romantic opposition to technology took on apocalyptic tones as
technology was exhausting the world's resources and destroying its environment.
Over the last decades of the millennium, the fears about modern technology
reached a fever pitch. With biotechnology and now nano technology, there is no
fear that is to absurd or bizarre to raise including as my audience well knows,
the claimed that the release of a genetically engineered bacterium "would result
in the death of all terrestrial plants" by entering the root system of plants
causing the production of more than sufficient toxins to kill them. Anyone in
the audience is of the illusion that this hoary myth has been laid to rest,
should type Klebsiella planticola into a search engine and checkout what is
brought up.
Unable to deny the green revolution's spectacular increases in food production
far outpacing unprecedented growth in population, we are now told that modern
agronomy has drained our food of all its nutrients and its vital properties. One
study goes so far as to claim that there is "one inescapable conclusion: Life on
Earth is killing us" (CNS 1998). And I reply - If science and technology are
killing us, why are we living so long? If our food is so lacking in nutrients
and our medicine and pharmaceuticals so ineffective, then why are we so healthy?
In the 1970s, the appropriate technology movement in developed counties was
under a selfdelusion that developing countries wanted "intermediate
technologies" while the countries themselves, then and now, were concerned about
gaining access to the latest and best in technology. Inevitably, it was those in
developed countries who had never been to a developing country, who were under
an illusion that they were speaking on behalf of the poor and railed against the
effort "to impose" modern technology upon poor countries. Given that by the late
1970s, countries like Korea and Taiwan were manifesting command of an array of
technologies, a Marxist might legitimately wonder whether the appropriate
technology movement was in reality a capitalist plot to keep the poor countries
as hewers of wood and drawers of water and non-competitive.
Since the 1970s, the growing NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations) movement has
picked up the claim to be speaking for those without a voice while ignoring what
the actual leaders of these countries were saying and the people themselves are
showing by their actions that they want. Down to the present, developed country
NGOs claim to speak for the developing countries (G6B for the slogan, You are
the G8, we are 6 billion) yet they are promoting policies exactly contrary to
what the developing countries are seeking. Challenge the NGO spokespersons with
statements or actions by leaders of developing countries, and the NGOs will
respond that these leaders are an unrepresentative elite.
Protests from Seattle to the present on issues of technology (as well as child
labor, the environment, agriculture) offered positions on issues that the
developing countries see as being protectionist and harmful to them. Add in the
ongoing NGO interference in developing countries attempts to grow economically
by building dams for irrigation and power or pipelines for oil and gas export
revenues and it becomes questionable whether the NGOs and their Green allies
speak for anyone but elites in developed countries. They are quick to defend
wildlife and habitat but not the humans who live there.
1) Whether intended or not, the antibiotech actions including EU (European
Union) labeling requirements are a form of protectionism that to most developing
countries is their number one concern. Ironically (or maybe not so ironically),
the concern is greatest in Africa that has become a net food importing area.
They still export a variety of products, maize (when the rains are plentiful),
cattle, cotton and any number of specialty,high valued products such as flowers
or "organic" produce. African countries know that they cannot attract the
necessary investment to modernize (acquire the best in technology) their
agriculture to meet their domestic food needs unless the investors know that
they will be able to export in addition to selling in the local market.
2) Precautionary principle may sound reasonable but it is simply an excuse for
protectionism. When all else fails and there is no evidence of harm, opponents
of transgenic food crops have invoked the precautionary principle. The greater
the imagined fear, the greater the justification for opposing a new technology
no matter what the facts of the case may be. One clever expression of the
precautionary principle states - "absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of
absence of harm." Not mentioned is the fact that absence of evidence of harm is
sometimes the only evidence possible that there is no harm. As has been
repeatedly maintained by scientists, they cannot prove there is absolutely no
possibility of harm, now or in the future; all they can show is that the best
scientific testing can find no evidence of harm and nothing in our current
scientific knowledge gives us any reason to expect to find harm by continued
testing. But given the "proof" demanded, no amount of testing for safe use will
satisfy the critics.
3) Intellectual property and corporate control of agriculture have become issues
of concern in international trade and technology transfer. We get a strange mix
of arguments in which it is maintained that biotechnology does not benefit the
farmer etc. yet the same groups are worried about who controls a technology that
they claim is worthless if not downright harmful. If it is worthless than why
worry about who controls it? If it has value than why oppose it in such a way
that makes it more difficult for publicly funded institutions such as IRRI
(International Rice Research Institute) to carry out research for advances that
would be freely available to those who need them? And for heaven's sake, why
oppose Vitamin A enhanced rice that could save so many children's lives and keep
other children from going blind? And why should poor farmers get caught in the
crossfire from those who are really opposed to multinational corporations and
globalization? And most critically of all, what kind of human being would
actively seek to prevent those dying and at risk of dying from famine, from
receiving the food which they so desperately need? One distinguished
conservationist argues that "persuading governments responsible for the lives of
hundreds of thousands of starving people in Africa to forego food aid on the
basis of politically or economically motivated disinformation seems to me to
constitute a serious crime against humanity" (Raven 2003, see also Paarlberg
2002). (As an aside, may I add that may supporters of transgenic technologies
have long been believed that opposition to GM food crops was just an excuse to
go after multi-national corporations.)
4) Trade and technology issues have always been intertwined. Those of us who
support the WTO (World Trade Organization), also favor the technology transfer
that it facilitates.
[Brief personal digression - The WTO is a work in progress. I work with a number
of developing countries (I am off to Southern Africa after my trip here and will
be there in July and again in August) that have any number of grievances against
the WTO as it is currently constituted. I share their concerns and work with
them to bring about the changes required to make WTO a more effective instrument
of free trade and technology transfer. Similarly, I have no problem with
granting patents to intellectual property or to the discovery of lifeforms.
However, I am concerned that some of the early patents granted in these areas
were awarded using criterion that is no longer considered acceptable when it was
not even remotely understood what the potential of genetic engineering was.
Rather than facilitating investment in research and development, these
"submarine" patents are inhibiting technological progress and access to it by
those most in need. In other words, there are very serious issues to be
discussed and resolved. By their knee-jerk anti-globalization, anti-intellectual
property stance and blanket opposition to all patenting of life forms, the NGOs
have made it impossible to discuss the really important issues.]
The trade alternative to the WTO's multilateralism is bilateralism where small
countries have to negotiate singularly with their larger trading partners. At
least in the WTO, coalitions can form which include, small and large countries,
rich and poor the Cairns group (which includes New Zealand and the United
States) for example which may not completely "level the playing field" but
makes it a lot closer to level than is the case with bilateral negotiations. A
country like Malaysia can join with the Cairns on agriculture and then can join
with Europe and Japan to oppose U.S. tariffs on steel. To be candid, politics
being what it is, governments in large countries often take unilateral actions
in violation of the WTO agreements already in place. Having a WTO ruling against
their actions, can frequently give the politicians the cover to do what they
knew in the beginning was the right thing to do.
5) Critics of biotechnology frequently use the alleged "failure" of the Green
Revolution as a reference point and as a basis for arguing against transgenic
technology in agriculture but not in pharmaceuticals. We happily join the issue
on their terms. From 1960 to 2000, world population doubled but because of the
Green Revolution, food supply rose 270% resulting in a 30% or more increase in
per capita food consumption and a halving of the real price of basic food
commodities such as rice which further benefited the poor. This was achieved
with only a 7% increase in land under cultivation (4% increase for grains which
provide two thirds of the world's food). Because of the greater efficiency of
Green Revolution crops, the water used to produce the world's food crops has
remained constant.
Contrary to the claims of Green Revolution's critic's claims of voracious water
use, in agriculture "water productivity increased by at least 100 percent
between 1961 and 2001" (FAO 2003, 25). The major factor behind:
For wheat and rice, two major crops of the Green Revolution, "water
consumption experienced little if any variation during these years" as per
capita water use in food production fell in half (FAO 2003, 25). FAO argues that
genetically engineered crops can contribute to improved "water use efficiency"
(2003, 28).
Modern conservation tillage (or reduced, minimum or no-tillage) agriculture
using pesticides for weed and pest control conserves water, soil and
biodiversity better than its "organic" competitors and better than any previous
forms of tillage (DeGregori 1985, 111-112). Conservation tillage is building up
soil and soil quality. Planting with a drill, possibly disking the field
preserves soil structure and vegetative cover (and the diversity of life
therein) and preserves the earthworms and other lifeforms that are often
destroyed by deep plowing as used in "organic" and older forms of conventional
agriculture.
Various forms of conservation tillage have been expanded in recent years with
crops genetically engineered for pest resistance or for herbicide tolerance
which allow forms of tillage in which a less toxic broad spectrum pesticide is
substituted for multiple sprayings of an array of targeted pesticides and
herbicides thereby reducing overall pesticide use. Ironically, these practices
have also led to a reduction in overall pesticide.
Since their introduction in the mid-nineties, transgenic crops engineered for
herbicide tolerance (by expressing a protein that is fully digestible by humans
and other animals) have brought a decline in pesticide use, something its
critics have long claimed to favor. There have even been enormous benefits from
plants engineered to resistant to certain pesticides. In the United States,
transgenic crops and conservation tillage have led to significant declines in
pesticide use and a reduction in fossil fuel use with further benefit to the
environment. The potential for farmers in poor countries for reduced cost of
pesticides, water and fuel and/or labor inputs coupled with an increase in net
yield (whether by increased production or decreased crop loses in the field, net
yield is net yield and any increase is to be desired) offers these farmers an
opportunity to improve their lives and that of their families (Qaim and
Zilberman 2003 and James 2002).
Many of the leading luminaries of the anti-genetically modified food movement
continue to proclaim the Green Revolution to be a failure while still arguing
that there is enough food for everyone. If the Green Revolution was and is a
failure, where does this "enough food for everybody" come from? Nobody claims
that we are producing enough to feed the projected future population, nor does
anyone have any viable proposals as to how we may do so. Critics continue to
vilify those who made the Green Revolution and those who are working to create a
new double Green Revolution. Organic chemistry, genetics and now molecular
biology have been as essential to twentieth century advances in agriculture such
as plant breeding, and provide a framework for what is needed to keep the
process moving forward.
Plant biotechnology is not simply a luxury but increasingly a necessity. The
Green Revolution was necessary not only to feed a growing world population but
also to prevent the inevitable famine and environmental destruction that would
have resulted from large population increase without an increase in yields per
unit of cultivated land. If we are to feed the 9 billion people expected by the
year 2040 before population growth is likely to cease, reduce world hunger and
save the remaining habitat than we must have the yield increases that only
biotechnology can now deliver. Though rice yields have tripled over the last 30
years, we are now "fast approaching a theoretical limit set by the crop's
efficiency in harvesting sunlight and using its energy to make carbohydrates" (Surridge
2002, 576). According to John Sheehy, plant ecologist at IRRI, "the only way to
increase yields and reduce the use of nitrogen fertilizers is to increase
photosynthetic efficiency" (quoted in Surridge 2002, 577). Plant evolution has
shown us an improved pathway for photosynthesis.
Biotechnology engineering in iron-rich rice is likely to be an important factor
in "fighting iron deficiency anemia" which affects about 30% of the world's
population," mostly women, and is the important nutritional deficiency (Lucca et
al. 2002). [For any who doubt the potential nutritional benefits of transgenic
technology, The American College of Nutrition's had a Special Supplement in its
journal, Journal of the American College of Nutrition titled The
Future of Food and Nutrition With Biotechnology with an excellent series of
scholarly articles on the many potential nutritional and other health benefits
to GM food (Grusak; Harlander; Liu et al.; Lonnerdal; Korban et al. and
Rocheford et al. 2002).]
Improving the photosynthetic efficiency of rice has the potential of increasing
both nutritional value and enhancing its ability to withstand environmental
stress. Harnessing of solar
Photosynthesis involves "collection of solar energy and its efficient
conversion into chemical energy," a process susceptible "to damage by any excess
solar energy." As a result of the "parallel functions of antioxidants in plants
and humans, new mechanistic hypotheses should incorporate information from both
plant physiology and human physiology" (DemmigAdams and Adams 2002).
6) Globally the trade issues surrounding biotech are becoming more critical.
The United States has finally decided to challenge the European Union under the
rules governing the WTO on the various forms from moratoriums to costly labeling
requirements to restrict the importation of transgenic food crops and to protect
European agriculture. New Zealand along with a number of other countries has
chosen to join in as a third party supporting the US case. The outcome of this
case has major implications for biotech development throughout the entire world.
Under the rules of the WTO, the EU must justify their protectionist policies
based on sound science. Every country has an absolute right to defend the health
and well being of its citizens and their environment. But any country or group
of countries has to demonstrate the science of their claim of harm. If the WTO
adheres to its own rules then there is no question that the United States will
win this case. Never in my entire life have I been involved in a controversy in
which the science and the scientists are so overwhelmingly on one side of the
debate. If the EU was really interested in ascertaining the safety of transgenic
food and food crops, it need only consult with its own quality scientists and
scientific organizations. The verdict is clear, there has never been a safer,
more predictable form of plant breeding than transgenics. Never has there been a
greater potential for the rapid transformation of agriculture to the benefit of
all humankind. The stakes in this contest are not trivial.
If the Europeans are successful in using pseudo-science to defend protectionist
policies than it could well open the floodgates to restrict imports on a number
of technologies of potential benefit to poor countries. A consequence could be
that new technologies that hold enormous potential for addressing the world's
problems would be held hostage to the whims of governments that do not have the
courage to stand up to the threats of special interest groups.
With the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on our side, it is a battle that
we should be able to win if we have the courage and fortitude to engage in it.
It is a battle to create a rule-based system of trade governed by practices in
which differences are settled by reasoned discourse and verifiable evidence and
which all can benefit from the advances in scientific inquiry.
A Closing Note to the Agriculture Meeting
You as agricultural scientists have chosen a noble calling, that of working to
find better ways to feed your fellow human beings. These must be trying times
for you. Those who have done nothing to help feed others and worked to impede
your efforts, claim a moral high ground and condemn your efforts with any number
of vile epitaphs. You are judged guilty of every crime imaginable and your
scientific inquiry as well as that of your colleagues in other sciences is
condemned as being reductionist.
A boundless sense of wonder and curiosity has led you as scientists to ask many
questions of why and how and what next? It is out of this spirit of questioning
that the active, problem solving human mind has expanded the scope of human
understanding, created science and technology and in the process made a better
life for all of us. This advancing knowledge has led to dramatic reductions in
disease and death, provided better food and nutrition for an growing population
and expanded and bettered all aspects of human life.
Science offers the possibility to be a transcultural unifying force in a diverse
world. Critics may point to its shortcomings, which are many as is the case for
any human endeavor but science and the scientific method offer a hope of
overcoming the barriers that have historically divided us.
Many of you pursue your dreams of improved food supply using the tools of
molecular biology. Scientific inquiry offers a unique vision of the human
condition that its critics can't comprehend. This 50th anniversary year of your
society is also the 50th anniversary of the Watson/Critic papers in Nature
(April 25 and May 30, 1953) on the double helix structure of DNA. To some, this
is the ultimate in "reductionist science" in spite of the stream of advances in
medicine that have followed from it. To others, the knowledge that has flowed
from molecular biology and DNA research offers new possibilities for
understanding ourselves. The philosopher, Meera Nanda suggests that it would be
"interesting" to see the reaction of "untouchables" to the "knowledge that DNA
material ... has the same composition in all living beings, be it brahmin or
bacterium. Or what would a women do with the knowledge that it is the chromosome
in sperm that determines the sex of the new born?" (Nanda 1991, 38).
May we add that over 99.9% of the human genome is shared by all human beings and
of the less than 0.1% that differentiate us, only about 3 to 5% of that is
between groups with about 95% being intra group variation (Rosenberg et al.
2002). Not only, is the genome that unites us as humans, vastly greater than
that which differentiates us but the portion of the genome that defines our
individual biological differences within our culture is itself, vastly greater
than the minuscule portion of the genome, 0.05%, that defines differences
between groups (Rosenberg et al. 2002, King et al. 2002 and Wade 2002). In my
judgment, this vision of the fundamental unity of humans and life in general,
when combined with the advances in human life and health, offer the best hope we
humans have for our future and for those who come after us.
I thank you!
---------------------------------------------
Addendum on Transgenics for Reference
Throughout human history, agricultural crops have been genetically modified one
way or another. There is nothing "natural" about our food crops as most of them
would be unable to either propagate or survive without human intervention. What
has changed over the years is the technology that has been used to bring about
the genetic modification.
In general, humans have undertaken one of three methods to genetically modify
plants:
Conventional breeding: Formerly, farmers practiced selective breeding and cross
breeding or what we call conventional breeding. Conventional breeding is less
precise and predictable and therefore the less safe than genetic modification or
more correctly, transgenic plant breeding. The process has worked well, as
humans using conventional plant breeding were able through time to increase the
yields in agriculture and either support a larger population and/or improve
human nutrition. The high yielding dwarf varieties of wheat and rice that
produced the Green Revolution were the result of conventional breeding.
Down to the 20th century, most plant breeding was largely a matter of selection
and cross breeding. Occasionally crosses between separate species were made,
either as a result of human action or some unexplained "natural" happening.
Wheat is a product of two or three different transpecies crosses of plant with
different chromosomal structures.
During the 1920s, advanced pollination techniques were used to create hybrid
maize, a major but accepted genetic modification, which far outyielded normal or
"natural" maize. However, seed saved from hybrid maize for planting reverts to
its original parents and yields much less than the hybrid. This means the farmer
has to buy new seed each year but the increased yield normally makes that effort
worthwhile many times over. Hybrid maize has become the number one food crop of
Africa.
Mutagenesis: The next method to follow in this technology continuum involved the
use of nuclear radiation or chemical mutagens to bring about mutations. This
method is called mutagenesis, and has the least predictable outcome of all forms
of plant breeding, but the technology is accepted and has escaped the label of
"genetic modification," presumably because these techniques have been around for
more than half a century. The only advantage of the powerful, and sometimes
lethal, genetic mutagens, is that they produce a great many more mutations than
occur naturally, thus generating the variability that breeders need for
introducing new characteristics into their plants. The Food and Agriculture
Organization/ International Atomic Energy Agency's Mutant Varieties Database
Register (December 2000) lists over 2252 crops in over 70 countries in which
these mutant varieties are listed. Key varieties are grown and/or eaten in
virtually every country. The barley used in commercial beers around the world as
well as the wheats used to make pasta are all products of radiation mutation
breeding.
Genetic engineering: With the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s
followed by a greatly improved understanding of the process of inheritance, the
way became clear for transgenic technology or genetic engineering. This enabled
desirable characteristics expressed by a gene or small group of genes from any
organism to be specifically transferred to another organism. This is done under
precisely controlled conditions, under which the gene, together with a marker,
is incorporated in plant tissue, which is then grown in tissue culture to
produce plants. At this stage the plant is subject to initial evaluation,
ensuring that the gene has indeed transferred successfully and stably, produces
the desired trait and there are no unintended effects on plant growth or
quality.
The gene transfer process is far more precise than the other accepted procedures
and permits desirable plant transformations to be performed that have not been
possible using conventional breeding.
Half a million children in less developed countries become blind through Vitamin
A deficiency every year. To combat this, expensive and cumbersome food
supplement programs are put in place but even so are not wholly successful.
Conventional plant breeding has been applied to this problem for many years
without success. Genetic engineering has produced yellow rice with enhanced
Vitamin A precursor level through the introduction of genes from the daffodil
and a bacterium. Where rice is the staple diet, this new quality should
contribute to ridding the less developed countries of the scourge of this
particular blindness.
Populist Fears of the Dangers of "Frankenfoods."
Genetic modification or engineering of crop plants has generated far more
adverse reactions than the informed guesswork that preceded it. The fears are
based on the extraordinary power of this new technology, but are rationalized to
concentrate principally on two factors:
* concern for human health;
* concern for the environment.
Exhaustive tests have been carried out to determine if genetically modified
crops carry an increased risk of allergic reactions or other effects in people
eating them. There is no evidence so far that this or any other adverse reaction
or nutritional problem has been caused in people eating these crops after the
nearly ten years of production on over 400 million acres which has been consumed
by over one billion people. Transgenics is increasingly involved in the
discovery and creation of new pharmaceuticals and transgenic enzymes and
bacterium are involved in the production of most of the cheeses, breads, wines,
beers and vitamins that many consume on a daily basis including those most
opposed to the technology.
Damage to the environment has been postulated to be a possible result of growing
transgenic crops. The fears include the escape of genes into related wild
plants, adverse effects of insect toxins (in the case of crops with the Bt gene)
on desirable insects, transfer of antibiotic resistance. While these may be
theoretical possibilities, no significant detrimental effects have been
detected, largely because these genes, that can transfer to closely related
plants do not have any negative impact, even if transferred, because the Bt
genes and encoded proteins do not negatively effect non-target creatures and
because the antibiotic resistance genes are already prevalent in the soil, in
the human gut and throughout the environment.
Several factors lessen the likelihood of damage to the environment, demanding a
case-by-case analysis. Some crop plants and their wild relatives are
selfpollinated, so there is no opportunity for gene transfer to take place.
Current work to insert the novel genes into the plastid further reduces the
likelihood of gene transfer (Day, 2003, see also Gallie 2003 and Timmis 2003).
Others have no wild relatives in the local flora so the local environment does
not have suitable plants as recipients of these genes. Transfer of antibiotic
resistance from transgenic plants into the soil micro flora is very unlikely and
has not been convincingly demonstrated. Even if there were transfer, these genes
are ubiquitous in the soil microflora already.
If there are any two things that the public in developed countries have phobias
about, they are "chemicals" (which has become a code word for industrially
produced chemicals) which are all assumed to be carcinogenic and radiation which
is assumed to cause cancer and mutations. Most of these phobias have been
carefully promoted by the same NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) that attack
transgenic breeding so one wonders why they are so extremely silent about the
use of "chemicals" and radiation in plant breeding, particularly when they also
actively oppose the use of irradiation of foods to kill microorganisms (a
technique of food protection that has been used for over 40 years). Starting
with a blank slate of public opinion on plant breeding, it would be far easier
to frighten people about chemical and radiation breeding than about the
insertion of a single gene plus a promoter and a marker. The promoter is simply
a DNA sequence which allows the gene to be expressed while current techniques
require the use of marker genes. Clearly, there is an element of opportunism in
the opposition to transgenic technologies in food production.
Conclusion
The process and result of genetic modification have been subject to the closest
scrutiny by the world's best scientists. These plants and the foods derived from
them are among the most extensively tested plants and foods that have been
developed, to assure the consumers that these products are safe to the
environment and to consume. In a joint report issued in July 2000, The National
Academies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, United States, United Kingdom and the
Third World Academy of Sciences concluded: "It is critical that the potential
benefits of GM technology become available to developing countries" (RS et al.
2000)
They also "conclude that steps must be taken to meet the urgent need for
sustainable practices in world agriculture if the demands of an expanding world
population are to be met without destroying the environment or natural resource
base. In particular, GM technology coupled with important developments in other
areas should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve
the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture and
provide access to food for small scale farmers" (RS et al. 2000).
References